Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community
opsawg Z. Li
Internet-Draft R. Gu
Intended status: Standards Track China Mobile
Expires: June 19, 2019 J. Dong
Huawei Technologies
December 16, 2018
Export BGP community information in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-12
Abstract
By introducing new Information Elements (IEs), this draft extends the
existing BGP-related IEs to enable IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
to export BGP community information, including BGP standard
communities defined in RFC1997, BGP extended communities defined in
RFC4360, and BGP large communities defined in RFC8092. Network
traffic information can then be accumulated and analyzed at the BGP
community granularity, which represents the traffic of different
kinds of customers, services, or geographical regions according to
the network operator's BGP community planning. Network traffic
information at the BGP community granularity is useful for network
traffic analysis and engineering.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 19, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Li, et al. Expires June 19, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Export BGP Community in IPFIX December 2018
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. BGP Community-based Traffic Collection . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. IEs for BGP Standard Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IEs for BGP Extended Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. IEs for BGP Large Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Encoding Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.1. Template Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.2. Data Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) [RFC7011] provides network
administrators with traffic flow information using the Information
Elements (IEs) defined in [IANA-IPFIX] registries. Based on the
traffic flow information, network administrators know the amount and
direction of the traffic in their network, and can then optimize
their network when needed. For example, the collected information
could be used for traffic monitoring, and could optionally be used
for traffic optimization according to operator's policy.
[IANA-IPFIX] has already defined the following IEs for traffic flow
information exporting in different granularities: sourceIPv4Address,
sourceIPv4Prefix, destinationIPv4Address, destinationIPv4Prefix,
bgpSourceAsNumber, bgpDestinationAsNumber, bgpNextHopIPv4Address,
etc. In some circumstances, however, especially when traffic
engineering and optimization are executed in Tier 1 or Tier 2
operators' backbone networks, traffic flow information based on these
Li, et al. Expires June 19, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Export BGP Community in IPFIX December 2018
IEs may not be completely suitable or sufficient. For example, flow
information based on IP address or IP prefix may provide much too
fine granularity for a large network. On the contrary, flow
information based on AS number may be too coarse.
BGP community is a BGP path attribute that includes standard
communities [RFC1997], extended communities [RFC4360], and large
communities [RFC8092]. The BGP community attribute has a variety of
use cases, one of which is to use BGP community with planned specific
values to represent groups of customers, services, and geographical
or topological regions, as used by operators in their networks.
Detailed examples can be found in [RFC4384], [RFC8195] and Section 3
of this document. To understand the traffic generated by different
kinds of customers, from different geographical or topological
regions, by different kinds of customers in different regions, we
need the corresponding community information related to the traffic
flow information exported by IPFIX. Network traffic statistics at
the BGP community granularity are useful not only for the traffic
analyzing, but also can then be used by other applications, such as
traffic optimization applications located in an IPFIX Collector, SDN
controller or PCE. [Community-TE] also states that analyzing network
traffic information at the BGP community granularity is preferred for
inbound traffic engineering. However, [IANA-IPFIX] lacks IEs defined
for the BGP community attribute.
Flow information based on BGP community may be collected by an IPFIX
Mediator defined in [RFC6183]. IPFIX Mediator is responsible for the
correlation between flow information and BGP community. However, no
IEs are defined in [RFC6183] for exporting BGP community information
in IPFIX. Furthermore, to correlate the BGP community with the flow
information, the IPFIX Mediator needs to learn BGP routes and perform
lookups in the BGP routing table to get the matching entry for a
specific flow. Neither BGP route learning nor routing table lookup
are trivial for an IPFIX Mediator. The IPFIX Mediator is mainly
introduced to reduce the performance requirement for the Exporter
[RFC5982]. In fact, to obtain the information for the already
defined BGP related IEs, such as bgpSourceAsNumber,
bgpDestinationAsNumber, and bgpNextHopIPv4Address, etc, the Exporter
has to hold the up-to-date BGP routing table and perform lookups in
the table. The Exporter can obtain the BGP community information in
the same procedure, thus the additional load added by exporting BGP
community information is minimal if the Exporter is already exporting
the existing BGP-related IEs. It is RECOMMENDED that the BGP
community information be exported by the Exporter directly using
IPFIX.
Through running BGP [RFC4271] or BMP [RFC7854] and performing lookups
in the BGP routing table to correlate the matching entry for a
Li, et al. Expires June 19, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Export BGP Community in IPFIX December 2018
specific flow, IPFIX Collectors and other applications, such as SDN
controller or PCE, can determine the network traffic at the BGP
community granularity. However, neither running BGP or BMP protocol
nor routing table lookup are trivial for the IPFIX Collectors and
other applications. Moreover, correlation between IPFIX flow
information and the BGP RIB on the Exporter (such as a router) is
more accurate, compared to the correlation on a Collector, since the
BGP routing table may be updated when the IPFIX Collectors and other
applications receive the IPFIX flow information. And as stated
above, the Exporter can obtain the BGP community information during
the same procedure when it obtains other BGP related information. So
exporting the BGP community information directly by the Exporter to
the Collector is both efficient and accurate. If the IPFIX
Collectors and other applications only want to determine the network
traffic at the BGP community granularity, they do not need to run the
full BGP or BMP protocols when the BGP community information can be
obtained by IPFIX. However, the BMP protocol has its own application
scenario, and the mechanism introduced in this document is not meant
to replace it.
By introducing new IEs, this draft extends the existing BGP-related
IEs to enable IPFIX [RFC7011] to export BGP community information,
including the BGP standard communities [RFC1997], BGP extended
communities [RFC4360], and BGP large communities [RFC8092]. Flow
information, including packetDeltaCount, octetDeltaCount [RFC7012],
etc., can then be accumulated and analyzed by the Collector or other
applications, such as an SDN controller or PCE [RFC4655], at the BGP
community granularity, which is useful for measuring the traffic
generated by different kinds of customers, from different
geographical or topological regions according to the operator's BGP
community plan, and can then be used by the traffic engineering or
traffic optimization applications, especially in the backbone
network.
The IEs introduced in this document are applicable for both IPv4 and
IPv6 traffic. Both the Exporter and the IPFIX Mediator can use these
IEs to export BGP community information in IPFIX. When needed, the
IPFIX Mediator or Collector can use these IEs to report BGP community
related traffic flow information it gets either from Exporters or
through local correlation to other IPFIX devices.
As stated above, the method introduced in this document is not the
definitive and the only one to obtain BGP community information
related to a specific traffic flow, but a possible, efficient and
accurate one.
No new BGP community attributes are defined in this document.
Li, et al. Expires June 19, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Export BGP Community in IPFIX December 2018
Note that this document does not update the IPFIX specification
[RFC7011] and the Information Model [RFC7012]. Rather, IANA's IPFIX
registry [IANA-IPFIX] contains the current complete Information
Element reference, per Section 1 of [RFC7012].
Please refer to [IANA-IPFIX] for the complete list of BGP-related
IEs.
Please refer to Appendix A of this document for the encoding example
and Section 3 for a detailed use case.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
IPFIX-specific terminology used in this document is defined in
Section 2 of [RFC7011] and Section 2 of [RFC6183].
BGP standard community: The BGP Communities attribute defined in
[RFC1997]. In order to distinguish it from BGP extended communities
[RFC4360], and large communities [RFC8092], BGP Communities attribute
is called BGP standard community in this document.
3. BGP Community-based Traffic Collection
[RFC4384] introduces the mechanism of using BGP standard community
and extended community to collect the geographical and topological
related information in the BGP routing system. [RFC8195] gives some
examples of the application of BGP large communities to represent the
geographical regions. Since the network traffic at the BGP community
granularity represents the traffic generated by different kinds of
customers, from different geographical regions according to the
network operator's BGP community plan, it is useful for network
operators to analyze and optimize the network traffic among different
customers and regions. This section gives a use case in which the
network operator uses the BGP community-based traffic information to
adjust the network paths for different traffic flows.
Consider the following scenario, AS C provides a transit connection
between ASes A and B. By tagging with different BGP communities, the
routes of AS A and B are categorized into several groups respectively
in the operator's plan. For example, communities A:X and A:Y are
used for the routes originated from different geographical regions in
AS A, and communities B:M and B:N are used for the routes
Li, et al. Expires June 19, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Export BGP Community in IPFIX December 2018
representing the different kinds of customers in AS B, such as B:M is
for the mobile customers and B:N is for the fixed line customers. By
default, all traffic originating from AS A and destined to AS B (we
call it traffic A-B) goes through path C1-C2-C3 (call it Path-1) in
AS C. When the link between C1 and C2 is congested, we cannot simply
steer all the traffic A-B from Path-1 to Path C1-C4-C3 (call it Path-
2), because it will cause congestion in Path-2.
+----------+
| PCE/SDN |
+-------|Controller|-------+
| +----------+ |
| |
| AS C |
| | +----------+ | |
| | +---|Router C2 |---+ | |
| | | +----------+ | | |
AS A | | |100 50| | | AS B
+--------+ | +---------+ +---------+ | +--------+
|Router A|--|--|Router C1| |Router C3|--|--|Router B|
+--------+ | +---------+ +---------+ | +--------+
Community: | |100 100| | Community:
A:X | | +----------+ | | B:M
A:Y | +---|Router C4 |---+ | B:N
+----------+
Figure 1: BGP Community based Traffic Collection
If the PCE/SDN controller in AS C can obtain the network traffic
information at the BGP community granularity, it can steer some
traffic related to some BGP communities (when we consider only the
source or destination of the traffic), or some BGP community pairs
(when we consider both the source and the destination of the traffic)
from Path-1 to Path-2 according to the utilization of different
paths. For instance, steer the traffic generated by community A:X
from Path-1 to Path-2 by deploying a route policy at Router C1, or
steer the traffic from community A:Y to community B:M from Path-1 to
Path-2. Using the IEs defined in this document, IPFIX can export the
BGP community information related to a specific traffic flow together
with other flow information. The traffic information can then be
accumulated at the BGP community granularity and used by the PCE/SDN
controller to steer the appropriate traffic from Path-1 to Path-2.
4. IEs for BGP Standard Community
[RFC1997] defines the BGP Communities attribute, called BGP Standard
Community in this document, which describes a group of routes sharing
Li, et al. Expires June 19, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Export BGP Community in IPFIX December 2018
some common properties. BGP Standard Community is treated as 32 bit
value as stated in [RFC1997].
In order to export BGP standard community information along with
other flow information defined by IPFIX, three new IEs are
introduced. One is bgpCommunity, which is used to identify that the
value in this IE is a BGP standard community. The other two are
bgpSourceCommunityList and bgpDestinationCommunityList, which are
both basicList [RFC6313] of bgpCommunity, and are used to export BGP
standard community information corresponding to a specific flow's
source and destination IP address respectively.
The detailed information of the three new IEs are shown in Section 9,
IANA Considerations.
5. IEs for BGP Extended Community
[RFC4360] defines the BGP Extended Communities attribute, which
provides a mechanism for labeling the information carried in BGP.
Each Extended Community is encoded as an 8-octet quantity with the
format defined in [RFC4360].
In order to export BGP Extended Community information together with
other flow information by IPFIX, three new IEs are introduced. The
first one is bgpExtendedCommunity, which is used to identify that the
value in this IE is a BGP Extended Community. The other two are
bgpSourceExtendedCommunityList and
bgpDestinationExtendedCommunityList, which are both basicList
[RFC6313] of bgpExtendedCommunity, and are used to export the BGP
Extended Community information corresponding to a specific flow's
source and destination IP address respectively.
The detailed information of the three new IEs are shown in Section 9,
IANA Considerations.
6. IEs for BGP Large Community
[RFC8092] defines the BGP Large Communities attribute, which is
suitable for use with all Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) including
four-octet ASNs. Each BGP Large Community is encoded as a 12-octet
quantity with the format defined in [RFC8092].
In order to export BGP Large Community information together with
other flow information by IPFIX, three new IEs are introduced. The
first one is bgpLargeCommunity, which is used to identify that the
value in this IE is a BGP Large Community. The other two are
bgpSourceLargeCommunityList and bgpDestinationLargeCommunityList,
which are both basicList [RFC6313] of bgpLargeCommunity, and are used
Li, et al. Expires June 19, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Export BGP Community in IPFIX December 2018
to export the BGP Large Community information corresponding to a
specific flow's source and destination IP address respectively.
The detailed information of the three new IEs are shown in Section 9,
IANA Considerations.
7. Operational Considerations
The maximum length of an IPFIX message is 65535 bytes as per
[RFC7011] , and the maximum length of a normal BGP message is 4096
bytes as per [RFC4271]. Since BGP communities, including standard,
extended, and large communities, are BGP path attributes carried in
BGP Update messages, the total length of these attributes can not
exceed the length of a BGP message, i.e. 4096 bytes. So one IPFIX
message with a maximum length of 65535 bytes has enough space to fit
all the communities related to a specific flow, relating to both the
source and destination IP addresses.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages] extends the maximum size of a
BGP Update message to 65535 bytes. In that case, the BGP community
information related to a specific flow could theoretically exceed the
length of one IPFIX message. However, according to information
regarding actual networks in the field, the number of BGP communities
in one BGP route is usually no more than ten. Nevertheless, BGP
speakers that support the extended message SHOULD only convey as many
communities as possible without exceeding the 65536-byte limit of an
IPFIX message. The Collector which receives an IPFIX message with
maximum length and BGP communities contained in its data set SHOULD
generate a warning or log message to indicate that the BGP
communities may be truncated due to limited message space. In this
case, it is recommended to configure the export policy of BGP
communities to limit the BGP communities by including or excluding
specific communities.
If needed, the IPFIX message length could be extended from 16 bits to
32 bits to solve this problem completely. The details of increasing
the IPFIX message length is out of scope of this document.
To align with the size of the BGP extended community and large
community attributes, the size of IE bgpExtendedCommunity and
bgpLargeCommunity is 8 octets and 12 octets respectively. In the
event that the bgpExtendedCommunity or bgpLargeCommunity IE is not of
its expected size, the IPFIX Collector SHOULD ignore it. This is
intended to protect implementations using BGP logic from calling
their parsing routines with invalid lengths.
For the proper processing of the Exporter when it receives the
template requesting to report the BGP community information (refer to
Li, et al. Expires June 19, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Export BGP Community in IPFIX December 2018
Appendix A for an example), the Exporter SHOULD obtain the
corresponding BGP community information through BGP lookup using the
corresponding source or destination IP address of the specific
traffic flow. When exporting the IPFIX information to the Collector,
the Exporter SHOULD include the corresponding BGP communities in the
IPFIX message.
8. Security Considerations
This document defines new IEs for IPFIX. The same security
considerations as for the IPFIX Protocol Specification [RFC7011] and
Information Model [RFC7012] apply.
Systems processing BGP community information collected by IPFIX
collectors need to be aware of the use of communities as an attack
vector [Weaponizing-BGP], and only include BGP community information
in their decisions where they are confident of its validity. Thus we
can not assume that all BGP community information collected by IPFIX
collectors is credible and accurate. It is RECOMMENDED to use only
the IPFIX collected BGP community information that the processing
system can trust, for example the BGP communities generated by the
consecutive neighboring ASs within the same trust domain as the
processing system (for instance, the consecutive neighboring ASs and
the processing system are operated by one carrier).
[RFC7011] says that the storage of the information collected by IPFIX
must be protected and confined its visibility to authorized users via
technical as well as policy means to ensure the privacy of the
information collected. [RFC7011] also provides mechanisms to ensure
the confidentiality and integrity of IPFIX data transferred from an
Exporting Process to a Collecting Proces. The mechanism to
authenticate IPFIX Collecting and Exporting Processes is provided in
[RFC7011], too. If sensitive information is contained in the
community information, the above recommendations and mechanisms are
recommended to be used. No additional privacy risks are introduced
by this standard.
9. IANA Considerations
This draft specifies the following IPFIX IEs to export BGP community
information along with other flow information.
The Element IDs for these IEs are requested to be assigned by IANA.
The following table is for IANA's use to place in each field in the
registry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|ElementID| Name | Data Type|Data Type Semantics|
Li, et al. Expires June 19, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Export BGP Community in IPFIX December 2018
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| TBA1 | bgpCommunity |unsigned32| identifier |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| TBA2 | bgpSourceCommunityList | basicList| list |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| TBA3 |bgpDestinationCommunityList| basicList| list |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| TBA4 | bgpExtendedCommunity |octetArray| default |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| TBA5 | bgpSourceExtended | | |
| | CommunityList | basicList| list |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| TBA6 | bgpDestinationExtended | | |
| | CommunityList | basicList| list |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| TBA7 | bgpLargeCommunity |octetArray| default |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| TBA8 |bgpSourceLargeCommunityList| basicList| list |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| TBA9 | bgpDestinationLarge | | |
| | CommunityList | basicList| list |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|ElementID| Description | Units |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| TBA1 | BGP community as defined in [RFC1997] | |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| | basicList of zero or more bgpCommunity IEs, | |
| TBA2 | containing the BGP communities corresponding| |
| | with source IP address of a specific flow | |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| | basicList of zero or more bgpCommunity IEs, | |
| TBA3 |containing the BGP communities corresponding | |
| |with destination IP address of a specific flow| |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| TBA4 |BGP Extended Community as defined in [RFC4360]| |
| |The size of this IE MUST be 8 octets | |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |basicList of zero or more bgpExtendedCommunity| |
| TBA5 |IEs, containing the BGP Extended Communities | |
| |corresponding with source IP address of | |
| | a specific flow | |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |basicList of zero or more bgpExtendedCommunity| |
| TBA6 |IEs, containing the BGP Extended Communities | |
| | corresponding with destination IP address | |
| | of a specific flow | |
Li, et al. Expires June 19, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Export BGP Community in IPFIX December 2018
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| TBA7 | BGP Large Community as defined in [RFC8092] | |
| | The size of this IE MUST be 12 octets. | |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| | basicList of zero or more bgpLargeCommunity | |
| | IEs, containing the BGP Large Communities | |
| TBA8 | corresponding with source IP address | |
| | of a specific flow | |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| | basicList of zero or more bgpLargeCommunity | |
| | IEs, containing the BGP Large Communities | |
| TBA9 | corresponding with destination IP address | |
| | of a specific flow | |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|ElementID| Range | References | Requester | Revision | date |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| TBA1 | | RFC1997 |this draft | 0 | |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| TBA2 | |RFC6313,RFC1997|this draft | 0 | |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| TBA3 | |RFC6313,RFC1997|this draft | 0 | |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| TBA4 | | RFC4360 |this draft | 0 | |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| TBA5 | |RFC6313,RFC4360|this draft | 0 | |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| TBA6 | |RFC6313,RFC4360|this draft | 0 | |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| TBA7 | | RFC8092 |this draft | 0 | |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| TBA8 | |RFC6313,RFC8092|this draft | 0 | |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| TBA9 | |RFC6313,RFC8092|this draft | 0 | |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
Figure 2: IANA Considerations
10. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Benoit Claise and Paul Aitken for
their comments and suggestions to promote this document. We also
thank Tianran Zhou, Warren Kumari, Jeffrey Haas, Ignas Bagdonas,
Stewart Bryant, Paolo Lucente, Job Snijders, Jared Mauch, Rudiger
Volk, and Andrew Malis for their discussion, comments, and
suggestions to improve this document..
Li, et al. Expires June 19, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Export BGP Community in IPFIX December 2018
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6313] Claise, B., Dhandapani, G., Aitken, P., and S. Yates,
"Export of Structured Data in IP Flow Information Export
(IPFIX)", RFC 6313, DOI 10.17487/RFC6313, July 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6313>.
[RFC7011] Claise, B., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and P. Aitken,
"Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77,
RFC 7011, DOI 10.17487/RFC7011, September 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7011>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
11.2. Informative References
[Community-TE]
Shao, W., Devienne, F., Iannone, L., and JL. Rougier, "On
the use of BGP communities for fine-grained inbound
traffic engineering", Computer Science 27392(1):476-487,
November 2015.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages]
Bush, R., Patel, K., and D. Ward, "Extended Message
support for BGP", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-27
(work in progress), December 2018.
[IANA-IPFIX]
"IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/>.
[RFC1997] Chandra, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP Communities
Attribute", RFC 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC1997, August 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1997>.
Li, et al. Expires June 19, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Export BGP Community in IPFIX December 2018
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended
Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, DOI 10.17487/RFC4360,
February 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4360>.
[RFC4384] Meyer, D., "BGP Communities for Data Collection", BCP 114,
RFC 4384, DOI 10.17487/RFC4384, February 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4384>.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC5982] Kobayashi, A., Ed. and B. Claise, Ed., "IP Flow
Information Export (IPFIX) Mediation: Problem Statement",
RFC 5982, DOI 10.17487/RFC5982, August 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5982>.
[RFC6183] Kobayashi, A., Claise, B., Muenz, G., and K. Ishibashi,
"IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Mediation: Framework",
RFC 6183, DOI 10.17487/RFC6183, April 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6183>.
[RFC7012] Claise, B., Ed. and B. Trammell, Ed., "Information Model
for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7012, September 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7012>.
[RFC7854] Scudder, J., Ed., Fernando, R., and S. Stuart, "BGP
Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", RFC 7854,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7854, June 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7854>.
[RFC8092] Heitz, J., Ed., Snijders, J., Ed., Patel, K., Bagdonas,
I., and N. Hilliard, "BGP Large Communities Attribute",
RFC 8092, DOI 10.17487/RFC8092, February 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8092>.
[RFC8195] Snijders, J., Heasley, J., and M. Schmidt, "Use of BGP
Large Communities", RFC 8195, DOI 10.17487/RFC8195, June
2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8195>.
Li, et al. Expires June 19, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Export BGP Community in IPFIX December 2018
[Weaponizing-BGP]
Streibelt, F., Lichtblau, F., Beverly, R., and et al.,
"Weaponizing BGP Using Communities", November 2018,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/
slides-103-grow-bgp-communities-spread-their-wings-01>.
Appendix A. Encoding Example
In this section, we provide an example to show the encoding format
for the new introduced IEs.
Flow information, including BGP communities, is shown in the
following table. In this example, all the fields are reported by
IPFIX.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Source |Destination| BGP community | BGP community |
| IP | IP | corresponding with | corresponding with |
| | | Source IP | Destination IP |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| 1.1.1.1 | 2.2.2.2 | 1:1001,1:1002,8:1001 | 2:1002,8:1001 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| 3.3.3.3 | 4.4.4.4 | 3:1001,3:1002,8:1001 | 4:1001,8:1001 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 3: Flow information including BGP communities
A.1. Template Record
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SET ID = 2 | Length = 24 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Template ID = 256 | Field Count = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| SourceIPv4Address = 8 | Field length = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| DestinationIPv4Address = 12 | Field length = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| bgpSourceCommunityList= TBA2| Field length = 0xFFFF |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| bgpDestinationCommunityList | Field length = 0xFFFF |
| | = TBA3 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Template Record Encoding Format
Li, et al. Expires June 19, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Export BGP Community in IPFIX December 2018
In this example, the Template ID is 256, which will be used in the
Data Record. The field length for bgpSourceCommunityList and
bgpDestinationCommunityList is 0xFFFF, which means the length of this
IE is variable, and the actual length of this IE is indicated by the
list length field in the basic list format as per [RFC6313].
A.2. Data Set
The data set is represented as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SET ID = 256 | Length = 92 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SourceIPv4Address = 1.1.1.1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| DestinationIPv4Address = 2.2.2.2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 255 | List length = 17 |semantic=allof |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| bgpCommunity = TBA1 | Field Len = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BGP Source Community Value 1 = 1:1001 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BGP Source Community Value 2 = 1:1002 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BGP Source Community Value 3 = 8:1001 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 255 | List length = 13 |semantic =allof|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| bgpCommunity = TBA1 | Field Len = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BGP Destination Community Value 1 = 2:1002 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BGP Destination Community Value 2 = 8:1001 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SourceIPv4Address = 3.3.3.3 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| DestinationIPv4Address = 4.4.4.4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 255 | List length = 17 |semantic =allof|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| bgpCommunity = TBA1 | Field Len = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BGP Source Community Value 1 = 3:1001 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BGP Source Community Value 2 = 3:1002 |
Li, et al. Expires June 19, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Export BGP Community in IPFIX December 2018
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BGP Source Community Value 3 = 8:1001 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 255 | List length = 13 |semantic =allof|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| bgpCommunity = TBA1 | Field Len = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BGP Destination Community Value 1 = 4:1001 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BGP Destination Community Value 2 = 8:1001 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Data Set Encoding Format
Authors' Addresses
Zhenqiang Li
China Mobile
32 Xuanwumen West Ave, Xicheng District
Beijing 100053
China
Email: li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com
Rong Gu
China Mobile
32 Xuanwumen West Ave, Xicheng District
Beijing 100053
China
Email: gurong_cmcc@outlook.com
Jie Dong
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: jie.dong@huawei.com
Li, et al. Expires June 19, 2019 [Page 16]
